2. June 9, 1999: Minister of Health announces clinical trials
program, and procedure for exempting from criminal prosecution individuals
who successfully apply to Health Canada for access to medicinal marijuana.
To see the story in the Toronto Globe and Mail, and the June 9 statement
by the Minister of Health in the House of Commons, click here.
To see the government press release, including the proposed research plan,
click here.

4. Extracts from House of
Commons Debates (Hansard) relating to motion by Bloc Quebecois MP Bernard
Bigras, "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should undertake
all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana for health and medical
purposes:" House of Commons passes amended motion on May
25, 1999: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
take steps immediately concerning the possible legal medical use of marijuana
including developing a research plan containing clinical trials, appropriate
guidelines for its medical use, as well as access to a safe medicinal supply,
and that the government report its findings and recommendations before
the House rises for the summer."

May 25, 1999 House of Commons Debates (to
see full transcript of the complete day's debates, click
here.)

March
4, 1999 House of Commons Debates (to see full transcript
of the complete day's debates, click here.)

April 14, 1999House of
Commons Debates (to see full transcript of the complete day's
debates, click here)

5.Research materials
and other stories on medicinal marijuana and marijuana generally at
Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy web site, including the March 1999
report of the Institute of Medicine.

Recent Canadian Political and
Legal Developments about Medicinal Marijuana

(partly updated as of September 15, 2000)

prepared by the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, and including
excerpts from a forthcoming journal article by Dr. Patricia Erickson and
Eugene Oscapella of the Foundation

In March 1999, debate started on a motion introduced in the House of
Commons by a member of the opposition Bloc Quebecois party. The motion
read, “That, in the opinion of this House, the government should undertake
all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana for health and medical
purposes.” The Member of Parliament who introduced the motion had apparently
managed to obtain considerable support from within all parties. Debate
on the motion was set to take place over the spring of 1999, with a vote
planned for June. (The vote on an amended and watered-down motion took
place on May 25. For details, click here.)

The day before this motion was introduced, Canada’s Minister of
Health stated in the House of Commons that the government was “aware there
are Canadians suffering, who have terminal illnesses, who believe that
using medical marijuana can help ease their symptoms. We want to help.”
The Minister announced that, as a result, he had asked his officials to
develop a plan that will include clinical trials for medical marijuana,
appropriate guidelines for its medical use and access to a safe supply
of this drug. No details were provided, however, as to how long this
process would take, nor how such a program would operate.

There was some cynicism about the Minister’s announcement, since
the announcement appeared to be an attempt to undermine the Bloc Quebecois
motion with a relatively vague promise to “develop a plan”. Furthermore,
the Minister had refused to that time (March 1999) to use powers already
available to him under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act to exempt medicinal use of cannabis from the law.

However, on June 9, the Minister announced a clinical trials program
and a process for individuals who sought access to medicinal marijuana
to apply to Health Canada for an exemption. He also announced exemptions
under section 56 for two individuals. To see the government press release
which provides details of the program and the exemptions, click here.

Court challenges to Canada's cannabis laws

Some important cases have come before the courts that challenge the
constitutionality of the cannabis prohibition under Canada’s Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. These are the Clay (1997), Parker (1997), Krieger
(1998) and Caine (1998) cases. In the Clay case, the proprietor of
a London (Ontario) hemp products store was charged with cultivation and
trafficking of cannabis seedlings. Clay refused to plea bargain down to
simple possession; his case received a lot of media attention.
As well, Mr. Clay constructed his own web site for the case to raise money.
Further, the defendant was very articulate, middle class, and supported
by his respectable, conventional family. The basis for the defence
was a Charter challenge to the (then) Narcotic Control Act as an excessive
and inappropriate response to the behaviour involved in cannabis consumption.
Although Clay was convicted in August 1997 of trafficking and placed on
probation, the judge’s ruling is seen as significant because he accepted
the expert witness testimony about the relative harmlessness of cannabis,
in effect dismantling much of the demon drug mythology, and explicitly
recognized its potential medical benefits. The judge referred the
matter back to Parliament’s law making role.

When the Parker case was tried a few months later, involving charges
of possession and trafficking in cannabis, the defence hinged on Parker’s
own medical condition of epilepsy. Here the judge not only referred
to the Clay case, but also accepted the testimony of other expert witnesses,
and Parker himself, that smoking marijuana was the only effective remedy
for his severe, frequent seizures. The judge ruled in December 1997
that to deprive the defendant of a legal source of marijuana contravened
his primary Charter right to health and protection of life. Therefore,
the judge acquitted Parker of possession and ordered the police to return
the seized plants to him (however, since he had admitted to the police
that he gave cannabis to others who needed help, the judge said he had
no choice but to convict him on that charge and impose probation).

The importance of this ruling is that Parker’s right to obtain a legal
source of marijuana, through his own growing activities, was recognized.
This case has been interpreted by Parker’s own lawyer as a special case,
not extending at this time to others claiming medical necessity, i.e. such
individuals are still subject to arrest and prosecution. Both the
Clay and Parker cases are under appeal by the federal Department of Justice.
The appeals of the two cases were heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal,
in the autumn of 1999.

On July 31, 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously confirmed
the earlier trial court decision in favour of legal access to medical marijuana.
Court was considering a constitutional challenge to the marijuana prohibitions
in the former Narcotic Control Act ("NCA") and the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act ("CDSA") in the context of the medical use of marijuana.
On December 10, 1997, the trial judge, Sheppard J. granted a stay of proceedings
brought against Terrance Parker for cultivating marijuana contrary to the
NCA and for possession of marijuana contrary to the CDSA. The Crown
appealed. The unanimous Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judge's
decision to stay the charges against Parker. Accordingly, the
prohibition on the possession of marijuana in the CDSA is declared to be
of no force and effect. However, that declaration of invalidity is
suspended for a year. For a summary of the court decision, click
here.
For the full text of the court decision, click here.
For news report, click here.
For Toronto Globe and Mail editorial, click here.

The Clay and Parker cases were heard in Ontario, a province which historically
has been somewhat more lenient in cannabis matters than Alberta, where
the Krieger case was heard. Mr. Krieger, suffering from multiple
sclerosis, was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking.
He had publicized his intention to attend an Alberta court house to offer
marijuana to another multiple sclerosis sufferer, who was on trial for
possession for the purpose of trafficking. When Mr. Krieger acted upon
his declared intention, he was arrested, charged and convicted. However,
before sentencing, the judge gave Mr. Krieger additional time to prepare
evidence about the medicinal benefits of cannabis.

The judge in the Krieger case noted the well settled principle in sentencing
that trafficking in cannabis will attract a jail term, even for a first
offender, except in exceptional circumstances. However, the judge
considered Mr. Krieger’s case “exceptional”, given the motivation behind
Mr. Krieger’s actions -- his belief that cannabis possesses healing powers.
Mr. Krieger was sentenced to a $500 fine or 11 days in jail. This case
has therefore set an important precedent.

In Caine, a British Columbia case, the accused applied for a declaration
that prohibition against the possession of marijuana for personal
use was contrary to section 7 of the Charter – the right to “life, liberty
and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except
in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”. However,
the judge rejected the argument, citing his duty to follow a B.C. Supreme
Court decision that the prohibition of cannabis possession did not violate
section 7. The accused’s request that the judge reconsider whether
Parliament had the constitutional jurisdiction to prohibit the possession
of cannabis also failed.

In May 1999, James Wakeford, a Toronto AIDS patient, won the right to
cultivate and possess marijuana. The court granted Wakeford an interim
constitutional exemption, thus allowing him to cultivate and possess, pending
the outcome of Wakeford's application to Health Canada seeking the same
right to cultivate and possess. For details of the Wakeford case, click
here. On June 9, 1999,
the Minister of Health announced that Mr. Wakeford would be given an exemption
under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, thus
allowing him to cultivate and possess marijuana to treat his health condition.

These five cases, and others pending have all given a high profile
to cannabis issues and provided new and important information to the public
through the media coverage. Perhaps this partly explains why a 1997
poll found that 83% of Canadians supported legitimizing marijuana for medical
purposes. A 1999 poll obtained overwhelming support on a similar
issue: 78% of those polled said they supported the federal government’s
then recently announced plan to consider the use of marijuana as a possible
treatment for various medicinal conditions. In May, 2000, a poll conducted
for National Post finds over 90% favour legalizing marijuana for
medical purposes. For full story, click here.

As well, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (Ontario) "concurs
with similar calls from many other expert stakeholders who believe that
control of cannabis possession for personal use should be removed from
the realm of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the criminal
law/criminal justice system." To see full statement, click here.

Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Health. There are indications that marijuana could be beneficial
for the relief of pain and nausea in cancer, AIDS, MS and glaucoma patients.
Is the minister supportive of making marijuana medically available to persons
in medical need and of supporting research into the medical effectiveness
of marijuana?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
for London West has done a great deal to advance this issue. This government
is aware there are Canadians suffering, who have terminal illnesses, who
believe that using medical marijuana can help ease their symptoms. We want
to help.

As a result, I have asked my officials to develop a plan that will include
clinical trials for medical marijuana, appropriate guidelines for its medical
use and access to a safe supply of this drug.

. . .

1455

HEALTH

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health minister just
made an announcement that he will allow the compassionate use of smoked
marijuana for those who are ill.

Is this the first step in the Liberal government's decriminalizing marijuana
for other purposes?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I said
is I have asked officials to develop a plan that would include access to
clinical trials so we can look at evidence. Surely the hon. member's mind
is not so closed that he is not prepared to consider evidence from research
into the question.

There are people who are dying. They want access to something they believe
will help with their symptoms. We want to help. Clinical trials would allow
us to get research to know more about how we can help.

That, in the opinion of this House, the government
should undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana
for health and medical purposes.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be the first elected member of
the House of Commons to speak, not just today in this
debate, but in the history of the House of Commons, on this vital matter
of the legalization of marijuana for health and medical
purposes.

Marijuana has been used medicinally throughout the world for thousands
of years. Today many patients, particularly those
suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and other
diseases, testify to the marked relief they obtain from
inhaling marijuana.

The therapeutic use of marijuana is, however, still banned by the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act, and users are liable to
a six-month prison sentence and a $1000 fine.

With a view to changing this unacceptable situation, I introduced a
motion one year ago in favour of the legalization of marijuana for health
and medical purposes. For me, this is a matter of compassion toward sick
people suffering from nausea, loss of appetite, vomiting, and other major
discomforts which accompany a number of chronic diseases.

1720

My motion is simple and unequivocal. It reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government
should undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana
for health and medical purposes.

In my opinion, it is unacceptable for a person with a chronic condition,
or a terminally ill AIDS patient, to be liable for six months in prison
and a $10,000 fine for using a medical treatment recommended by his or
her physician.

In this connection, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is totally
devoid of understanding and compassion toward the chronically ill, who
want nothing more than to live in dignity. This act must be changed as
soon as possible, in order to allow the medical use of marijuana by those
who need it.

The Ontario court has already found part of the Narcotic Control Act
to be unconstitutional. Clearly, the ball is now in our
court here in the House of Commons.

We have been elected to fulfil a role as legislators. We have no right
to let the courts decided in our stead. We must now
assume our responsibility as elected representatives by inviting the
federal government to pass concrete measures without delay
that will allow the therapeutic use of marijuana.

At the present time, the only parliamentary approach that can achieve
this is to give solid support to Motion M-381, which we
are debating here today for the first time, and which calls upon the
government to “undertake all necessary steps to legalize the
use of marijuana for health and medical purposes”. The situation is
urgent. For those who suffer, every day counts.

My position in favour of the legalization of marijuana for therapeutic
purposes was not formed yesterday. I was first made
aware of this injustice by my constituents, who urged me to take a
public position in favour of legalizing marijuana for health and
medical purposes.

Last March 6, I publicly supported a proposal along these lines by young
delegates to the Bloc Quebecois youth forum. I am
happy that this proposal was passed unanimously at the time by forum
delegates. The proposal called on the Bloc Quebecois to
take a stand in favour of the therapeutic use of marijuana and urged
its parliamentary wing to follow up.

Delegates were very happy to hear our leader, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie,
support their proposal in his closing
address to the conference. Two weeks later, I followed up with the
motion we are debating for the first time today.

This is not a new debate. The media and the courts have been looking
at this issue for some time now. Doctors are discussing it
with each other, and criminologists and patient advocacy groups are
giving it thought. It is a topic that has been of interest to
many people except, until today, members of the House of Commons. Now,
since this debate will be followed by a vote, each
of us here in the House will have an opportunity to take a clear stand
on the issue. This is, in our view, a simple issue of
transparency.

Until now, every time the issue of legalizing the therapeutic use of
marijuana came up, the Minister of Health or the Minister of
Justice tried to duck it. Their answer was always that they were open
to the issue, their officials were studying it, and they
hoped to be able to announce a plan or something more specific in a
few months' time, all the while hoping that the issue would
go away.

1725

They say the same thing the next time the question comes up. This was
what they did last year when an Ontario court judge
ruled that a section of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was
unconstitutional.

It was what they said when an AIDS sufferer from the Outaouais and his
physician asked the government to take action on this
issue. It is also what the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice
told me when I put the question to them here in the
House one year ago on March 10 and 23, 1998.

Yesterday, it was the usual scenario. On the eve of the first day of
debate on the motion that marijuana be legalized for medical
purposes, the Minister of Health suddenly feels a need to demonstrate
compassion towards the chronically ill.

What does he do to help? He announces that he will ask his officials
to prepare a plan to draw up guidelines for eventual
legalization of marijuana for medical use. I repeat: he announces that
he will once again ask his officials to prepare a plan to
draw up guidelines for eventual legalization of marijuana for medical
use.

What have the officials the minister asked to look into this issue last
year been doing? What do they have to show for their
research? Only the minister knows.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health took a step in the right direction,
and I said so yesterday. He deserves credit. He has
announced that he will be asking these same departmental employees
to draw up an action plan with a view to legalizing the
therapeutic use of marijuana. Hence we now know the mandate he claims
to have given to his staff.

How can we have any faith in his words when, in the past, the minister's
actions did not fall in line with his commitments? Why
did the minister announce a policy of openness but still no precise
timeframe or concrete measures to achieve the legal use of
marijuana for health and therapeutic purposes? Once again, his actions
denote a lack of transparency. What is more, this new
policy smacks of last-minute improvization by the minister. He rushed
to give his people a mandate just as the issue was about
to be debated.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Not true.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I hear the parliamentary secretary over there taking
the liberty to react to what I am saying.

The parliamentary secretary ought to be familiar with the demands by
the Canadian AIDS Society. She ought to be familiar
with the position of the Canadian Hemophilia Society, which has been
tabled today. She ought to be familiar with the positions
of Donald Kilby, director of the University of Ottawa Health Services.
And of Réjean Thomas, a leading figure in the treatment
of AIDS. And she ought to be familiar with the case of James Wakeford,
who has made a request under the special access
program. With the cases of Jean-Charles Parizeau and Terry Parker.
But no, the parliamentary secretary does not want to
know.

The minister's new policy smacks of improvization, as I have said.

He has given a hasty mandate to his departmental employees on the eve
of a debate on the matter, but is unable to give any
details on his policy. In fact, the minister cannot even say whether
his announcement means that he is taking the necessary steps
to legalize the health and medical use of marijuana.

1730

That is exactly what today's motion is calling for. The minister is
still refusing to say whether he will vote for or against the
motion. I hope that we can clarify his intentions in the course of
debate.

If the minister said yesterday that he was prepared to take steps towards
legalization, the only course open to him in June is to
vote in favour. Any move by the government to vote against this motion
will be interpreted by those favouring the legalization of
marijuana for medical purposes as unwillingness to keep this promise.

I repeat, the government and the minister must demonstrate in good faith.
I grant that he has taken a step in the right direction,
but his actions must suit his words, and he must vote in favour of
the motion.

In fact, the minister is certainly not yet able to tell us what stand
he will take. We are still waiting, and would have liked an
announcement yesterday as to where he stood. But instead we must wait.

I was in touch by phone as recently as yesterday with patients, doctors,
and associations asking me to continue the fight,
because nothing is a given, because although there was an announcement
yesterday, no timeframe was mentioned. There was
no research protocol. We know that there is no indication whatsoever
that the minister listens to patients, for instance those
who have made applications under the Health Canada special access program,
which is the minister's own responsibility.

I therefore wish to assure everyone, not only in this House, but everyone
involved in the campaign, the physicians, the patients,
that I will continue the awareness campaign I launched this morning.

I wish to assure them that this lack of transparency can only make me
step up the pressure so that a majority of MPs here in
this House will be able to vote in favour of this motion. The government
has no excuse whatsoever for taking refuge behind
inaction, as it has so far.

No one disputes the therapeutic effectiveness of THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol,
the principal active ingredient in marijuana.
Moreover, physicians can already prescribe Marinol tablets, and have
been doing so for some years now. This authorized
medication contains synthetic THC and is already available in pharmacies.
It is prescribed mainly to relieve nausea in terminally
ill patients and to stimulate appetite.

However, taking synthetic marijuana pills is not as effective as inhalation.
According to the prestigious New England Journal
of Medicine, swallowing pills cannot be compared to inhalation, which
rapidly raises blood THC levels and greatly enhances
the sought-after medical efficacy.

What is more, many patients who would be candidates for the medical
use of marijuana are already required to take huge
numbers of pills daily. We are talking of numbers even in excess of
30. One can imagine what taking more pills in the form of
Marinol means, then. The precise purpose of marijuana is to help make
the taking of so many pills bearable by relieving nausea.

Obviously, it is better to administer THC for nausea by the pulmonary
route than the digestive route. Many physicians are
therefore campaigning for the possibility of prescribing THC in the
form best suited to their patients. They argue that they are in
the best position to determine what suits their patients best.

1735

The Canadian Medical Association represents the medical community in
Canada and ensures that the health care system
provides doctors with what they need to deliver quality health care
to their patients. Since 1981, this association has been
arguing that the simple possession of marijuana should be decriminalized,
but it deplores the absence of more systematic
scientific research on the topic.

In 1995, the American Medical Association pointed out the need to review
American legislation on the therapeutic use of
marijuana. The British Medical Association goes even further: it has
called on the British government to take all necessary steps
to authorize the therapeutic use of marijuana, while respecting all
established scientific criteria.

The British Medical Association has also publicly encouraged the police
and the courts to tolerate use of marijuana for
therapeutic purposes. In its report, it says, and I quote:

Some patients are forced to use an illegal
drug to relieve symptoms that are not controlled by existing medication.

The report also says:

—and that there
is sufficient evidence that marijuana can help in certain circumstances.

These were quotes from a report by the British Medical Association.

As a result, following a major scientific research study by the British
House of Lords, the British government decided to go
ahead and authorize the first official trials to evaluate the therapeutic
effects of marijuana. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is
confident that, three years from now, cannabis will be a prescription
drug in Great Britain.

In Quebec and in Canada, well known physicians such as Réjean
Thomas and Donald Kilby have already come down
unambiguously in favour of legalization for medical and therapeutic
purposes, as have some major dailies. So have the Canadian
AIDS Society, the Canadian Hemophilia Society, which wrote me another
letter this morning, and the Coalition des organismes
communautaires québécois de lutte contre le sida. All
these organizations are calling on the government and members of
parliament to vote in favour of Motion M-381.

Today, I ask the men and women fighting for this legalization to be
patient, because I am very confident that they will have all
the support they need in June. Therefore—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member, but his time is up.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, as I rise today to
participate in this debate there are several members in the House whose
work on this topic should be acknowledged. I would
like to begin by acknowledging the member for London West for the work
that she has done in this area since 1997. I would
also like to acknowledge the member for Rosemont, the member from Okanagan—and
I regret that I cannot remember the
correct name of the riding—and other members who have spoken to me.

This government is aware that Canadians are suffering who have terminal
illnesses and who believe that using medical marijuana
can ease their symptoms and we in the government want to help them.

I emphasize that those Canadians who are struggling to find new and
better ways to maintain and improve their health have no
interest in this topic, and to all of those who are healthy I would
say that I hope this is a topic that will never be of interest to
them and that they will never need to come forward to ask for this
product.

1740

The concern we have is that there are those who are suffering. As the
Minister of Health said in the House yesterday, he has
asked his officials to develop a research plan that will include clinical
trials for medicinal marijuana, appropriate guidelines for its
medical use and safe access to the supply of this drug. This will allow
the government to get the information it needs so it can
share that with Canadians. We want a flexible approach that will help
Canadians and protect the health and safety of
Canadians.

In order to truly assess the value of marijuana as a drug it is essential
that we have reliable scientific evidence. We know there is
much anecdotal evidence. We heard the member in his opening remarks
refer to that evidence, but to date there is no reliable
scientific evidence. Therefore, as I have stated, the Minister of Health
has asked his officials to develop a plan that will include
the kind of information gathering, research and development of clinical
guidelines for the appropriate use of medical marijuana.

What we want to do is facilitate the development of these guidelines
so that those people who are suffering and in need of help
will have access to something that may be beneficial and that may assist
them. Many are terminally ill, many are in pain, many
are suffering from symptoms which they believe, and there is anecdotal
evidence to suggest, could be helped in this way.

We want to get the facts. We want to know whether this is effective.
But we also want to be able to use sections of existing
federal legislation to give those people the opportunity to have access
to a safe supply of medical marijuana that could be
helpful to them.

The interesting thing that most people would not know is that Health
Canada has already explored the possibilities of securing a
medicinal quality source of marijuana for use in its research projects.
As well, it has looked at ways of promoting research
within this country. We would provide patients with access to medicinal
marijuana in a controlled setting as part of clinical trials.

However, it is important to note, and I particularly address people
who have expressed concern about access to the program,
that the current Canadian drug regulatory framework and international
control framework create a scheme by which medical
quantities of marijuana could be legally available for medicinal purposes
like any other therapeutic drug.

In other words, the distribution of marijuana as a medicine could already
be possible provided that the product, the quantity
and the supply, is of good quality and originates from a legal or licit
licensed supplier as opposed to an illicit supplier. That is
very important. It is also very important under the existing law that
this be used in the proper research context.

The announcement by the minister dealt with the concerns that have been
raised by many in this House: access for those who
are suffering and in need, those who need help, but access within a
controlled clinical environment of research with appropriate
guidelines to ensure quality and safety and to ensure that the access
to the supply of this drug is of good medicinal quality.

I want to state very clearly that physicians would be and must be very
involved in the development of these research projects.
The government wants to help Canadians who are suffering, but it wants
to make sure they have the very best of advice and
assistance.

While we will be developing a research agenda which will include clinical
trials to gather evidence and needed documentation
on both the risks and the benefits of the medicinal use of medical
marijuana, we want a flexible approach that will provide
patients with access to medicinal marijuana at an early stage of the
research and in a setting that includes the support of qualified
physicians. That is very important.

1745

I heard the member opposite use the term legalizing of marijuana. People
should know that we are not talking about the
legalizing of marijuana.

What this does is it creates a research environment where we can do
the research, gather the evidence and in that environment,
just as we would with any other drug, make it available to people in
a research context. During the research setting, people
would have access to the drug. We would also be sure to develop appropriate
clinical guidelines to make sure that it was used
appropriately.

It would allow us to respond in a sensitive and compassionate way to
those who are terminally ill, who are suffering and are
coping with symptoms where the anecdotal evidence would suggest that
medical marijuana might be helpful to them. We want
to find solutions for Canadians who are suffering. We want to help
Canadians. We want to do it in a way that is appropriate.

Therefore, I am pleased to say that I intend to amend the motion. At
the appropriate time I will move an amendment to the
motion. I would like to give members notice of what I plan to move.

I will be saying that the motion should be amended by deleting all the
words after the word “should” and substituting the
following “take steps immediately concerning the possible legal medical
use of marijuana including developing a research plan
containing clinical trials, appropriate guidelines for its medical
use, as well as access to a safe medicinal supply and that the
government report its findings and recommendations before the House
rises for the summer”.

The member opposite and others have asked are we prepared to put forward
a timeline for this plan that the minister has asked
his officials to develop. I say to members of the House as part of
this debate that it is the government's intention to do this work
on a rapid basis so that we can have in place the plan to develop the
research and give people access as expeditiously as
possible. We know that the House rises for the summer in June. Before
that time the minister is making a commitment. We
hope all members will support the amendment. I know that there is support
in all parties.

In the time I have remaining, I would like to thank all of the members
who have spoken and who will be speaking on this, those
who spoke in private and those who sent notes to the minister letting
him know of their support for this initiative. I want to
emphasize again that this is not the legalization of marijuana. This
is treating marijuana like a drug that may be helpful to some.
We want to find out if it is. We want to provide the conditions for
access in a controlled clinical environment with appropriate
clinical guidelines.

Therefore, I move:

That, the motion be amended by deleting all
the words after the word “should” and by substituting the following:

“take steps immediately
concerning the possible legal medical use of marijuana, including developing
a research
plan containing
clinical trials, appropriate guidelines for its medical use, as well as
access to a safe medicinal
supply and that
the government report its findings and recommendations before the House
rises for the summer.

I have this available in both official languages and will be presenting
it to the chair to further this debate and discussion.

1750

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The Chair will take the motion under
advisement and get back to the House with a
ruling later.

[English]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Surrey Central.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to private member's Motion No.
381 which reads “That, in the opinion of this House, the government
should undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of
marijuana for health and medical purposes”.

I heard the amendment. On the face of it the amendment appears to be
okay as long as this is not a backdoor entry for
legalizing marijuana smoking. As long as a firm guideline is established,
probably it should be supported.

I have only recently undertaken the role of the official opposition's
deputy critic for health. My constituents and my colleagues
are proud to have me speak to Motion No. 381 and express our compassion
for the predicament faced by those Canadians
suffering from the diseases and conditions that cause them to turn
in desperation to marijuana to ease their symptoms.

Looking through the lens of compassion, my efforts on this issue are
dedicated first and foremost toward the thousands of
Canadians who are desperately seeking medicinal therapy for various
illnesses. These Canadians admittedly are frustrated at
being in a situation where the only source of relief from their illness
comes from smoking a substance that carries many
extremely harmful side effects.

With them I seek less harmful alternatives. It is very important to
look through the sympathetic consciousness of others' distress
together with a desire to alleviate it. Therefore, I will continue
to be outspoken on behalf of Canadians who are sick and seek
safe medicine.

Historically, the use of marijuana goes back centuries. The remains
of a woman from the fourth century were discovered. The
woman had died giving birth. There were marijuana leaves found near
her dead body at the site. Apparently she was inhaling
marijuana, relieving her pain all those hundreds of years ago.

To review the pros and cons, let us see how various professionals look
at this issue. Medically, THC, the drug in the marijuana
plant, is known to be helpful to treat symptoms of cancer, AIDS, glaucoma,
epileptic seizures, multiple sclerosis and migraine
headaches.

In the United States there are people who would like to have marijuana
moved from schedule 1 substances where it is deemed
to have no therapeutic use, to schedule 2 substances which are useful
drugs that can be prescribed by doctors. There are
people who would like to see it treated as a herbal remedy instead
of a drug.

Talking of support for legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, in
a national U.S. survey, 50% of cancer therapists said they
would prescribe marijuana if it were legal and 44% said they are already
suggesting it. It is far less addictive and far less subject
to abuse than other drugs used as muscle relaxants, hypnotics or analgesics,
according to the survey.

According to Harvard University, the chief concern about the use of
marijuana is the effect on the lungs of smoking it. Cannabis
smoke carries even more tars and other particulate matter than tobacco
smoke. Water pipes may reduce but cannot eliminate
the side effects.

We are fast approaching the 21st century. We need to look into more
advanced research to reap any benefits the drug can
offer without side effects. Perhaps a technological inhalation of cannabis
vapours could be developed, an inhaler for example,
or something else which could deliver the contents of marijuana.

The question for us to consider is if it is ethical to deny people who
are in pain something that will relieve their pain.

1755

The result of Dr. Corigall's research at the University of Toronto dealing
with the effects of canna-binoids on the brain predicts
that there could be a creation of a synthetic form of marijuana. In
arguments against legalizing marijuana for medical purposes,
Dr. Corigall says that the dosage of marijuana as an analgesic cannot
be regulated and ultimately people should not resort to
smoking it to relieve their pain.

We already know that smoking is bad for us because of all the carcinogens
that come with it.

Again on the negative side of the issue, a retired U.S. Drug Enforcement
Agency official said in 1996 since there are better
medicines with less harmful side effects than marijuana available for
the diseases for which it is touted, medical marijuana is a
cruel hoax. It does not help. It does more harm than good.

In another study, the chairman of the International Drug Strategy Institute
two years ago said, “suggesting that marijuana be
smoked as a medicine would be like proposing tobacco be used for anxiety
and weight loss”.

The National Institute of Health determined that crude marijuana adds
nothing to currently available medicine and indeed
creates increased risk to patients. The U.S. National Institute of
Health also says that a marijuana cigarette contains a complex
mixture of over 400 different compounds, including carcinogens. This
would be a concern for anyone but especially for patients
with chronic disorders or impaired immune systems.

The U.S. National Eye Institute fact sheet on the therapeutic use of
marijuana for glaucoma states that none of the studies
demonstrates that marijuana or any of its components could safely and
effectively prevent optic nerve damage from glaucoma.
Also, there are about 24 FDA approved drugs for the treatment of glaucoma.

The U.S. National Cancer Institute notes that inhaling marijuana smoke
is a health hazard. It has a long list of agents that are
more useful than marijuana.

We need to look as well at the positions put forward by different professionals.

Lawyers have said through the Canadian Bar Association that the government's
drug policies are misguided. They are in favour
of decriminalizing marijuana because to continue the government's approach
is doing more harm than good. The damage
inflicted by the legal system seems disproportionate to the offence.

In 1993 the Canadian Police Association recommended making simple marijuana
possession a ticketable offence, similar to
speeding. The Ottawa police chief said that the risk of things going
wrong during marijuana busts are too high.

In 1995, 43,000 Canadians were charged with 62,000 drug offences, and
71% of them were for marijuana. In the past 20
years, 700,000 Canadians were arrested on marijuana charges. Since
1995 in British Columbia, B.C. police have been advised
to stop laying marijuana charges because of court backlogs.

Let us look at what the medical community says. The World Health Organization
treats drug abuse as a health issue. In those
countries that treat drug abuse as a health matter rather than a criminal
matter, people are not afraid to seek help. Drug abuse
declines and remains at lower levels in those countries.

Providing treatment for drug abusers makes more sense than prison terms.
The goal is a healthy population.

With these things in mind, we should study using marijuana for health
and medicinal purposes.

In conclusion, I would say what is important to me is compassion. If
nothing else works for the diseases and suffering, I do not
see anything as a barrier.

I would expect to have more research done. Through research and innovation,
harmless methods may be found to benefit from
the medicinal use of marijuana.

1800

Reform is concerned with substance abuse of any kind, whether it is
drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or marijuana. I warn Canadians
that the Liberal government may use this issue of the medicinal use
of marijuana smoking to legalize it through the back door.

As long as it sticks to the amendments and as long as it has a reasonable
plan we will probably be supportive.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The amendment presented by the member
earlier is in order.

[Translation]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I would like to start by congratulating the
hon. member for Rosemont for this initiative and for the role he has
played in encouraging the federal government and the
Minister of Health to take steps to allow the legal use of marijuana
for health and medical purposes.

I would like to offer my support for this resolution, which states very
clearly:

—the government
should undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana for
health and medical
purposes.

[English]

Many of my colleagues in the NDP caucus have also worked very hard on
this issue but I want to acknowledge many in our
party who have come before us and have been quite outspoken on this
matter over the years. All of us in our own ways have
tried to find ways to put pressure on the federal government to act
on behalf of persons who need to use marijuana for medical
purposes, who need to find some relief from pain and suffering or to
deal with the symptoms of chronic or terminal illnesses.

We all know that these people who are speaking out and asking for action
are already in a poor physical state and are being
forced to purchase marijuana illegally and with the risk of arrest.

We are here today to join with the Bloc and with all members in the
House who support this view to urge the Liberal
government today to take a brave step to overcome the history and associations
of marijuana and recognize its value to the
medical community as a part of legitimate treatment options.

We urge the Minister of Health, in the commitment that he made yesterday,
to work with the Minister of Justice to ensure that
people who use marijuana for medical purposes are never subject to
prosecution.

Today we have before us this resolution from the Bloc now amended by
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
which will require some study and deliberations before we are prepared
to indicate our support for the amended motion. Our
major concern will be whether the intentions of the government, as
stated today, will in any way inhibit access for those people
who are suffering today.

It is one thing for the government to announce a plan of action to move
on this very critical issue. It is another thing for
individuals suffering from AIDS and other illnesses to wait four or
five months before they will know whether there will be
access.

1805

It certainly does not answer the question about all those individuals
who have been charged as a result of possession of
marijuana for medical purposes, nor does it address the question of
whether individuals currently under doctor's orders to
access marijuana will be charged in the first place.

We have many questions that must be addressed. I think for all of us
here today our concern is with trying to find a way to
immediately alleviate the pain and suffering of individuals for whom
marijuana prescribed on a medical basis is an important
solution, an important alternative.

Members of the Reform Party have presented different positions to us
and they are certainly going through a great deal of soul
searching about where they stand on this issue. There are broader issues
to be addressed. I think for today it is important for all
of us to say that we must address this issue from the point of view
of compassion and we must do it on the basis of a great deal
of urgency.

I do not have to repeat the many arguments that have been presented
to the House about the medical value of marijuana. I
think it is important to simply summarize some of the information that
has come from the medical and scientific community.

We know from studies that marijuana has been proven to be effective
in reducing pressure in glaucoma. It has been proven to
be successful in reducing vomiting and nausea associated with chemotherapy.
It has been clearly identified as stimulating
appetite in patients with AIDS wasting syndrome. It has been found
to be useful in controlling spasticity associated with spinal
cord injuries and MS. It has been found to decrease suffering from
chronic pain. It has been found to be useful in controlling
seizures in seizure disorders.

Marijuana is also considered to have a potential for a number of other
conditions such as emphysema, because it dilates the
bronchioles in lungs and in migraines. It has a wide margin of safety
and by all accounts is non-lethal.

The other important factor in all this is that marijuana used for medical
purposes does not have many of the side effects that so
many other treatments entail, side effects that sometimes are so serious
that patients stop using the medications despite their
suffering.

I refer members to a 1997 editorial in the prestigious New England Journal
of Medicine which refers to the parallel American
prohibition as “misguided, heavy handed and inhumane”. It also states:
“To demand evidence of therapeutic efficacy is equally
hypocritical. The noxious sensations that patients experience are extremely
difficult to quantify in controlled experiments. What
really counts for a therapy with this kind of safety margin is whether
a seriously ill patient feels relief as a result of the
intervention, not whether a controlled trial proves its efficacy”.

Many scientists who are convinced of the value of marijuana in terms
of its medical significance are advising patients to use it
despite the legal risks.

I point to another study quoted in the national news on September 24,
1998: “Science is assembling convincing evidence that
Queen Victoria was not merely catering to royal whim when she used
marijuana to numb her menstrual cramps. “Researchers
at the University of California have discovered that cannabis triggers
a pain suppressing circuit in the brains of rats, which
demonstrates that the drug is indeed a pain killer”.

The article outlines significant scientific and medical information
to lead us to believe that study and research have been done on
this issue. We may be just delaying the need to act by talking about
clinical trials and further study before moving as quickly as
possible on this matter.

1810

I remind members of the most recent letter from the Canadian AIDS Society
which urged all of us to support the resolution put
forward by the hon. member for Rosemont: “As a result of the illness
facing people with HIV and AIDS individuals often suffer
severe nausea and an inability to eat. Wasting, which is a lack of
body fat and muscle mass, is one of the leading causes of
death for people with HIV and AIDS. Many of the current drug regimes
that individuals are prescribed include strict timetables
of when they can and cannot take the medication as well as whether
the medications need to be taken with food or without.
The side effects of these medications often include nausea”.

There is ample evidence of the benefits of marijuana use on a medical
basis. There have been significant studies and clinical
trials. I think the time is now for action.

What does the amendment put forward by the government today mean in
terms of legal ramifications for people who are either
charged now with illegal possession or are perhaps facing charges?
I suggest to the minister that there is provision now within
our Food and Drugs Act for actually ensuring that under the emergency
relief program we can ensure reasonable and
responsible access to marijuana for treatment in keeping with the requirements
of Canadian law pertaining to the use of
marijuana as a new drug under the Food and Drugs Act and as a controlled
substance under the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act.

We will study very diligently the amendment of the government but we
strongly support the motion put forward by the Bloc
member and we urge the government to move quickly. We may need more
clinical trials, more studies and more research but
we also need to act immediately to deal with the pain and suffering
of many individuals for whom there is no other reasonable
alternative.

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam Speaker, the
debate today really centres around the word
compassion. I want to read the motion so that the viewing audience
has a chance to hear it once again:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government
should undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana
for health and medical purposes.

Those are the key words, health and medical purposes. We are talking
about a compassionate use of a substance which is
illegal.

The debate today could be taking place on any number of substances used
for pain relief in medicine, prescribed by doctors on
a timely basis in cases where they are needed.

Let us imagine for a minute whether we should be debating the use of
morphine. Should we not be talking about the use of
codeine, morphine or heroin? What we are talking about is the use of
a drug to relieve pain in those who are suffering.

I think that is very commendable. We are not talking about the legalization
of the product for recreational or casual use. We are
talking about a drug prescribed by doctors to help patients deal with
the threshold of pain and suffering. In many cases we are
talking obviously of terminally ill patients.

The Canadian Medical Association, which I consulted on this, has some
interesting observations. I think it is worth putting these
on the record as well. It is not cut and dry. Certain considerations
have to be made any time a substance is used for medicinal
purposes. Some of these are outlined very clearly by the CMA.

I quote a letter to me from the CMA which says the CMA has advocated
the decriminalization of the possession of marijuana
for many years. I think that position goes back to 1981.

1815

The position of the Canadian Medical Association is:

That the Canadian Medical Association recommend
to the federal government that the jurisdictional control of marijuana
be moved from the Narcotics Act to the Food
and Drugs Act and that all past criminal records related to simple
possession be erased.

It has a very strong position on the decriminalization of the use of
marijuana. However, when it comes to the medical use of
marijuana, it is quite ironic that it has concerns, some of which I
will outline.

The CMA is concerned that as a herbal medicine it cannot be patented.
It says that exploitation of research is therefore
precluded.

It is concerned that the chemical content can vary considerably from
plant to plant.

It is concerned that the standardization and reproducibility of clinical
trials is problematic as the plant and its delivery system is
unique and, therefore, it would be almost impossible to conduct blind
trials.

Another reservation is that the delivery system is not reliable from
patient to patient as the dose received depends upon the
delivery technique.

Another concern is that there is almost no independent quality research
available, such as randomized control trials, to guide
decision making on the appropriate and effective medical use of marijuana
or the side effects and risks associated with its
consumption.

I think that everyone in this House would agree with some of those concerns.
Basically, it boils down to the consistency of the
product being used.

We heard from some members in this House as to whether or not it is
really effective. However, if it is working on some
patients and not on others, it is probably not unlike any other drug.
Different drugs have different effects on people because of
the chemistry of the human body. I think that is to be expected.

Part of it, probably from the patient's perspective, is what they believe.
It is like the individual who wears a copper bracelet for
rheumatism or arthritis. I guess if they believe that it works and
they say that it works, it probably does work.

This has been a hotly debated topic. I want to quote from the transcript
of a program by Dr. David Suzuki. I think most of us
from time to time have watched—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that I must interrupt
the member at this point. However, I wish to tell him
that the next time this bill comes before the House he will have approximately
four minutes if he wishes to use that opportunity.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business
has now expired.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think
you would find unanimous consent to allow the
member to finish the four minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent for the
member to finish?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Speaker, the House is being very generous tonight
and I appreciate it because we did start
early.

Dr. Suzuki in his program was talking to his listening audience about
marijuana and its use. He was talking about a gentleman
who had a sick son. I want to put this on the record because it spells
out pretty clearly the effects and how positive it can be
when used for the right reasons.

A gentleman by the name of Lester Grinspoon was speaking. He said:

My son who in 1967 was diagnosed as having
acute lymphatic leukaemia, he was 10 years-old then. By the time he
reached the age of 13, was beginning to get
some of the cancer chemotherapeutic substances which cause severe nausea
and vomiting. He would vomit for about eight
hours or have the dry heaves for eight hours. He would vomit in the car
on
the way home from the hospital and just lie
in his room with his head over a bucket on the floor.

1820

That is a very common experience for any of us who have had relatives
and loved ones who were sick and receiving
chemotherapy. It is not unusual for that to happen.

He went on to say that he and his wife were at a dinner party and a
doctor recommended the use of marijuana for this young
boy. He said:

On the way home from that dinner party my wife
Betsy said “Well, maybe we should get some marijuana for Danny”.
I'm ashamed to say it, I said “No we can't
do that. It's against the law and we don't want to embarrass the people
at the
Children's Hospital who are taking such great
care of Danny”. His next chemotherapy was due a couple of weeks later
and Betsy and Danny smoked in the parking
lot outside of the Children's Hospital. I couldn't believe what happened
because not only did he not have any nausea
but he even asked his mother “Could we get a submarine sandwich on the
way home?” And I then called Dr. Jaffy who
was the doctor who was directly involved in Danny's care and said to him
“Look”, I told him the story, I said “I'm
not going to stand in the way of his using marijuana this time”.

The story goes on in quite a bit of detail. Basically what it is saying
is that it does work under controlled circumstances. I believe
that the House has to consider that.

Again, going back to the very nature of this bill, we are talking about
the word compassion. In relation to other substances out
there let us give it a try under controlled conditions, under doctor's
orders. If we could do that we would be prepared to
support this bill.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want
to correct the record. The correct name of the riding I
was referring to is Okanagan—Coquihalla.

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the consideration
of Private Members' Business has now
expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Stephen Jay Gould, the renowned Harvard scientist and essayist, wrote
not long ago that "It
is beyond my comprehension that any
humane person would withhold such a beneficial
substance from people in such great
need simply because others use it for different
purposes."

The substance in question is marijuana.
The people in "such great need" are cancer and
AIDS patients, who feel that marijuana
offers them succour. Prof. Gould knows whereof he
speaks: In the 1980s, marijuana relieved
him of the nausea from the chemotherapy that
treated his cancer.

Similar stories are too numerous to count,
yet Canada continues to treat as criminals very
sick people who use marijuana, a fact
which is unlikely to change soon despite the March
announcement by Health Minister Allan
Rock that the government will study medical
marijuana.

There are reasons to doubt the sincerity
of a government that has happily accepted the status
quo since taking power in 1993.
For one, more study hardly seems a priority when there are
already stacks of research on medical
marijuana. There's so much evidence, in fact, that the
New England Journal of Medicine has
editorialized in medical marijuana's favour. Just last
month, an 18-month study commissioned
by the drug policy arm of the White House -- a
branch that has for years fought medical
marijuana tooth and nail - -- declared that marijuana
has important medical uses, especially
for cancer and AIDS. One author of the study noted
that there is "an explosion of new scientific
knowledge" about marijuana's useful effects.
Why re-invent the wheel if Mr.
Rock is serious about change?

There's yet another reason to doubt our
government: the case of Jim Wakeford, who, in
August, 1998, went to court demanding
that he be given the legal right to possess marijuana.
Mr. Wakeford has AIDS, and the
disease has ravaged his body. At one point, his weight
dropped from 140 pounds to 118. But
then he discovered marijuana and the drug's ability to
instill a fierce appetite in users.
Mr. Wakeford's weight rose back into safe ranges.
But the law says that in saving his
own life as he did, Mr. Wakeford committed a crime
repeatedly. He's a criminal.
Either that or, as Dickens wrote, the law is an ass.

The judge hearing Mr. Wakeford's
case was sympathetic but he pointed to a law which
gives the minister of health the power
to allow individuals or groups to legally possess
marijuana. The judge said Mr.
Wakeford would first have to ask the minister to use that
discretion before he could argue before
the court that the government, in forbidding him
access to marijuana, had violated his
Charter right to "life, liberty and security of the person."
So Mr. Wakeford asked the minister.
In fact, he asked six times. Only once, finally, did
the health ministry reply. They
said they would look into it.

Recently, Mr. Wakeford went back
to the same judge. Seven months had gone by, an
eternity to a man with AIDS, and the
minister had done nothing. The judge ordered the
government to explain at a hearing this
month just when it might rouse itself to decide on
Mr. Wakeford's request.

This is cruelty made flesh. Mr.
Rock has the power but he does not use it. Why not? What
precisely is he waiting for? Mr.
Wakeford's funeral?

More generally, why doesn't Mr.
Rock, as a modest first step, use his discretionary power
to exempt the terminally ill from the
ban on marijuana? Surely the existing evidence of health
benefits is strong enough for at least
that. But, really, what if there were no evidence of
marijuana's medical benefits? What if
it only made AIDS patients giggle a little? What
possible public interest could there
be in continuing to arrest them for daring to touch
marijuana? Is Mr. Rock worried
they might get sick? This is government by Monty Python.

We have made no secret of our opposition
to the ban on marijuana, consumed for whatever
purpose, which we feel is irrational,
invasive, and destructive. But the refusal to allow even
terminal patients to try marijuana is
so cruel, so pointless, it is, to paraphrase Stephen Jay
Gould, beyond our comprehension.

The federal government plans to conduct human clinical tests to determine
if smoking marijuana can reduce pain in terminally ill patients, a first
step toward legalizing the drug for medical purposes.

Health Minister Allan Rock made the announcement yesterday in the House
of Commons, explaining later that it should not be seen as a step toward
legalizing marijuana use.

"This has nothing to do with legalizing marijuana," he told reporters.

"This has to do with the fact there are people in Canada suffering from
terminal illnesses who have symptoms which are very difficult and who believe
(smoking marijuana) can help."

Mr. Rock said there is plenty of anecdotal evidence from individuals
suffering from cancer and AIDS who say the drug can alleviate pain and
combat nausea, but no strict scientific evidence.

The minister released few details of the tests, but said officials have
been asked to set up the clinical experiments, as well as establish what
kinds of patients would participate and look into how patients could be
guaranteed access to a safe supply of the drug.

A spokesman for the minister said it may take a month or two before
officials draw up plans for the clinical tests, determining the size of
the tests and the duration.

The government does not plan to change the Criminal Code for the trials,
but will use a section of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that
allows the minister to exempt people from prosecution for special circumstances.

The exemption is a sore point for advocates of medical marijuana use,
who have complained that the minister had turned a deaf ear to compassionate
applications in the past.

"We made an application 15 months ago for a person with AIDS who was
literally starving to death and they did not allow it," said Eugene Oscapella
of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy in Ottawa. He said the sufferer
-- Jean Charles Pariseau of Vanier -- was advised by his doctor to take
marijuana to fight nausea and stimulate appetite.

"If the government is sincere this time and that's a big if, then we're
happy with the announcement," Mr. Oscapella added.

"I have a hard time understanding why we are not allowing responsible
adult Canadians who have led responsible lives access to this potentially
therapeutic thing that may reduce the pain in their lives, that may help
them."

Mr. Rock and Justice Minister Anne McLellan had pledged to initiate
a national debate of medical marijuana more than a year ago, but yesterday's
announcement was the first concrete step toward legalizing the drug for
patients.

Pressure has been building on the issue in both Canada and the U.S.
for years and last November voters in six U.S. states joined California
in approving referendums to legalize medical marijuana use.

Bloc Quebecois MP Bernard Bigras plans to introduce a motion in Parliament
today urging the government to take every step toward legalizing medical
marijuana.

Reaction from opposition members yesterday were mostly positive, although
Reform MP Grant Hill, a medical doctor, warned of risks if the testing
was seen as a first step down the road to legalizing the drug for general
use.

"As a medical doctor, I have treated young people who were habituated
to marijuana, whose (school) marks had suffered and whose lives were wrecked,"
he said. "But I'm open to compassion if marijuana is the only thing that
works."

But some advocates of medical marijuana use were not impressed by what
they saw as a grudging baby step by the federal government.

"It's a waste of taxpayers' money," said Terry Parker, a Toronto man
who says smoking marijuana daily eases the severity of epileptic seizures
he has suffered since 1963.

Mr. Parker, 43, who in 1997 won a landmark court decision allowing him
to grow and smoke marijuana for medical use, said clinical tests are unnecessary
because the drug has already proven its value to people suffering from
a range of medical conditions.

Advocates said the drug is effective in reducing spasms for multiple
sclerosis sufferers, epilepsy seizures, as a pain killer and in reducing
symptoms of nausea which helps patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Allan Rock, the Health Minister, gave the go-ahead yesterday for clinical
trials on the medical use of marijuana to determine whether the drug can
help ease the pain of Canadians suffering from terminal illnesses such
as AIDS and cancer.

The Bloc Quebecois, which has led a campaign to legalize use of the
drug for medical purposes, and pro-medical marijuana advocates immediately
applauded the move. The Reform party was reluctant to give its support
to clinical trials out of fear it might be the first step toward full decriminalization
of marijuana.

Mr. Rock said scientists from his department will gather evidence "as
soon as possible," and develop appropriate guidelines for the medical use
of the drug, as well as provide access to a safe supply.

"There are people who are dying. They want access to something they
believe will help with their symptoms. We want to help. Clinical trials
would allow us to get research to know more about how we can help," Mr.
Rock told the House of Commons.

Grant Hill, the Reform's health critic and a medical doctor, said he
is concerned the announcement could open the door to legalized selling
of marijuana for recreational use.

"I'm open to compassion, and if marijuana is the only thing that works
for a patient, I would accept that," Dr. Hill said.

"[But] as a medical doctor, I treated young people who were habituated
to marijuana, whose marks had suffered, whose lives were wrecked. That's
my concern."

Mr. Rock was quick to dismiss the idea that Ottawa is moving toward
wider legalization.

"This has nothing to do with legalizing marijuana. It has to do with
the fact that there are people in Canada now who are suffering from terminal
illnesses who have symptoms which are very difficult and who believe that
access to medical marijuana can help with those symptoms."

Bernard Bigras, the Bloc Quebecois MP who will announce today a cross-country
campaign for the legalization of the drug for medical purposes, said he
hopes police officers will no longer charge terminally ill people who use
the drug to alleviate their pain.

"This is a step in the right direction, but the battle is far from being
won. This is a question of compassion," Mr. Bigras said.

Eugene Oscapella, a founding member of the Canadian Foundation for Drug
Policy, which supports the decriminalization of many drugs for medical
purposes, said Mr. Rock's decision was "long overdue."

Mr. Rock's announcement came more than a year after an Ontario judge
ruled it is legal to grow and use marijuana for medicinal use.

In December, 1997, Justice Patrick Sheppard said that Terry Parker,
a Toronto resident, was deprived of his "right to life, liberty and security"
by being charged with possession of marijuana.

Mr. Parker had been smoking marijuana for more than 20 years to ease
the severity of epileptic seizures. An appeal of the judge's ruling has
yet to be heard.

Ottawa -- The federal government plans to start clinical trials on the
therapeutic benefits of marijuana -- a study that could eventually lead
to legalizing the drug for people suffering from diseases such as cancer,
AIDS and multiple sclerosis.

Health Minister Allan Rock announced yesterday that his department is
developing guidelines for the trials to establish clear scientific evidence
whether marijuana helps chronically and terminally ill patients manage
pain and deal with other symptoms of their illnesses.

The study would examine how the drug should be administered, and how
a safe supply could be distributed to qualifying patients.

"There are people who are dying," Mr. Rock said. "They want access to
something they believe will help with their symptoms. We want to help."
He said it hasn't been determined how long the trials will take or who
will participate, but the study is expected to be a partnership between
the government and private researchers.

The Health Department has already consulted with the Food and Drug Administration
in the United States -- which is also planning similar trials -- about
acquiring a supply of the drug for the tests. Making marijuana available
to patients by prescription will not require an amendment to the criminal
code, a Health Department source said. The drug could be administered under
an existing section of the Food and Drug Act, which allows for special
access to prohibited substances.

Anecdotal evidence that marijuana alleviates pain in some patients has
been growing -- although people continue to face criminal charges across
Canada even when they claim to be using it for medical purposes.

That's what happened to Mark Crossley, a 38-year-old Nova Scotia man
with an inoperable brain tumour, who said the government's announcement
is "long overdue." Mr. Crossley was sentenced last week to four months
of house arrest and 18 months probation for growing marijuana in his backyard.
He said he received the sentence even after the court was told he smoked
the drug to deal with the painful headaches and appetite loss caused by
his cancer -- a practice supported in writing by his doctor.

"They've sentenced me to a death, slowly and cruelly," Mr. Crossley
said. "I've got three to four years left. [The judge] is not in a position
to tell me what I can do with my health."

Mr. Rock said his announcement is not a step toward a widespread legalization
of the drug.

"This has nothing to do with legalizing marijuana," he said, but added,
"I think Canadians support on a compassionate basis, if someone is dying,
access to a substance that could alleviate their suffering."

An Edmonton doctor who specializes in pain management applauded the
announcement yesterday, saying clinical trials are needed to set up national
standards and study all sides of the issue. Doctor Helen Hays is about
to publish a paper on a patient she studied who smoked marijuana to counter
the symptoms of a debilitating and painful muscle disorder. "There was
a tremendous improvement," she said, while cautioning the drug brings its
own side effects and doesn't work for everyone. "We all need to know an
awful lot more about it."

Mr. Rock's announcement pre-empts a debate today in the House of Commons
of a private member's bill from a Bloc Québécois MP that
asks the government to conduct studies on the issue. Stephane Bigras has
obtained support for his motion from the Bloc, New Democrat and Progressive
Conservative caucuses, as well as prominent medical doctors among the Liberals.
But the idea is not said to be supported by the majority of Reform MPs.

Reform health critic Grant Hill, a doctor who is against patients smoking
marijuana, said he is worried about the drug becoming too widespread in
its use. "Does the minister go down this road knowing how far it will go?"
he asked.

But Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett, who is also a doctor, said the medical
community needs guidelines to resolve the dilemma.

"It's been a shame," Dr. Bennett said, "that when there's something
that really works for people they have to use illegal routes to get it."

Doctors can currently prescribe a synthetic form of marijuana, but it
is expensive, and many patients complain that oral forms of the drug don't
work as well as smoking it.

The federal government plans to conduct human clinical tests to determine
if smoking marijuana can reduce pain in terminally ill
patients, a first step toward legalizing the drug for medical purposes.

Health Minister Allan Rock's announcement in the House of Commons on
Wednesday was both applauded and panned in
Calgary.

``It's a good idea, and it's about time,'' said Dr. Nady El-Guebaly,
medical director of the addictions centre at Foothills
Hospital.

``Let's test it. So far it's been a lot of heated debate and little
science. I think it's high time we did a properly controlled trial.''

But Det. Pat Tetley, a city police drug expert who's testified at more
than 500 court cases around North America, said
products are available on the market that have the same or better results
than you would get from smoking marijuana.

``It's a placebo effect, or at best it's an excuse for a person to continue
to smoke it because they've been smoking it all their
lives,'' said Tetley, who's studied marijuana since 1979. ``I think
it's absolutely ridiculous to think that we would ever make it
legal medicinally.''

Tetley said: ``My heart goes out to these people who are afflicted with
these kinds of diseases, who are suffering . . . But surely
to God we can come up with something better than smoking marijuana
to help these people out.''

Rock later explained that it should not be seen as a step toward legalizing
marijuana use.

``This has nothing to do with legalizing marijuana,'' he told reporters.
``This has to do with the fact there are people in Canada
suffering from terminal illnesses who have symptoms which are very
difficult and who believe (smoking marijuana) can help.''

Rock said there is much anecdotal evidence from individuals suffering
from cancer and AIDS who say the drug can alleviate
pain and combats nausea, but no strict scientific evidence. The minister
released few details of the tests, but said officials have
been asked to set up the clinical experiments, as well as establish
what kinds of patients would participate and look into how
patients could be guaranteed access to a safe supply of the drug.

A spokesman for the minister said it may take a month or two before
officials draw up plans for the clinical tests, determining
the size of the tests and the duration.

Rock and Justice Minister Anne McLellan had pledged to initiate a national
debate of medical marijuana more than a year ago,
but Wednesday's announcement was the first concrete step toward legalizing
the drug for patients.

Pressure has been building on the issue in both Canada and the U.S.
for years. Last November voters in six U.S. states joined
California in approving referendums to legalize medical marijuana use.

Bloc Quebecois MP Bernard Bigras plans to introduce a motion in Parliament
today urging the government to take every step
toward legalizing medical marijuana.

Reaction from opposition members Wednesday was mostly positive, although
Reform MP Grant Hill, a medical doctor,
warned of risks if the testing was seen as a first step down the road
to legalizing the drug for general use.

``As a medical doctor, I have treated young people who were habituated
to marijuana, whose (school) marks had suffered and
whose lives were wrecked,'' he said. ``But I'm open to compassion if
marijuana is the only thing that works.''

Advocates say the drug is effective in reducing spasms for multiple
sclerosis sufferers, epilepsy seizures, as a painkiller and in
reducing symptoms of nausea which helps patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Calgary pot crusader Grant Krieger, who has multiple sclerosis and smokes
the illegal drug to alleviate his symptoms,
applauded the government .

``The cannabis plant is a very safe and effective alternative medicine,
which is banned,'' said Krieger, 44, who is organizing a
Compassion Club in Calgary to provide locally grown pot to people with
serious illnesses.

Two years ago, Krieger said he asked the federal health department for
permission to do a research project and ``they laughed at me.''

Illegal drug to be researched for use by the sick, Rock
reveals to House

By Tim Harper Toronto Star Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA - The federal government will begin clinical tests of marijuana,
the first step
toward establishing a safe, government-supervised supply of pot for
Canadians who need it
for medicinal purposes.

Health Minister Allan Rock made the surprise announcement in the House
of Commons
yesterday, a day before Bloc Québécois MP Bernard Bigras
was to introduce a private
member's motion on the same matter.

According to some estimates, 20,000 or more Canadians would be likely
to apply to smoke
marijuana to ease the pain and symptoms of such debilitating diseases
as glaucoma, multiple
sclerosis, cancer, epilepsy, AIDS or arthritis.

Canadians who are suffering deserve government help, the health minister
said.

The move was applauded by a number of medical organizations and activists
who had been
pushing for such action, but it is not expected to have any impact
on various court challenges
to the marijuana laws across the country.

``These are people who are dying,'' Rock told the Commons. ``They want
access to something
they believe will help with their symptoms.

``We want to help. Clinical trials would allow us to get research to
know more about how we
can help.''

In the United States, voters in seven states and the District of Columbia
have approved the
medical use of marijuana.

Outside the Commons, Rock told reporters he believes Canadians will
support the
government's move.

``This has nothing to do with legalizing marijuana,'' he said.

Dr. Don Kilby, director of the University of Ottawa's health services,
said he believes Ottawa
is sincere in its move and hopes it can quickly lead to a government-sanctioned
growing
centre.

``I want to make sure I know what my patients are smoking is safe,''
said Kilby, who treats
many HIV/AIDS patients.

``I don't want them smoking just anything.''

Kilby had already unsuccessfully applied to Health Canada for a special
provision under
existing legislation to provide marijuana for Jean-Charles Pariseau,
an Ottawa man who
suffers from advanced AIDS and wanted the marijuana to alleviate nausea.

Pariseau applauded the move yesterday, but said it was Bigras who spurred
the govern ment
into action.

Pariseau said his disease has made it virtually impossible for him to
leave his home.

He tires easily, after no more than three or four waking hours, he said.

``Marijuana would help me to forget my pain and make my life longer,''
Pariseau added.

Lawyer Eugene Oscapella of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy,
a think tank which
studies drug laws, welcomed the move, but said it was long overdue.

He said Rock had the opportunity to help Pariseau 15 months ago and
didn't act.

``It has become just plain cruel to deny this drug to dying people who
could use this to
alleviate pain and suffering,'' Oscapella said.

Rock had been considering such a move for about a year and he signalled
his intention in a
newspaper interview last August when he said he planned to have bureaucrats
put the wheels
in motion for clinical tests.

``How the hell can we do a clinical study until it's legal?'' asked
Terry Parker, the Toronto
man who won a 20-year fight to use marijuana to treat his epilepsy
in December, 1997, The
Star's Jennifer Quinn reports.

Parker said yesterday he is concerned synthetic alternatives to marijuana
- which he believes
aren't as effective - might be pushed by the government.

Health Canada officials said independent research is now underway in
California but it is not
sanctioned by Washington.

Clinical tests are also underway in Britain, but in some other European
nations therapeutic
use of marijuana is already allowed.

A Vanier man who was one of the first people in
the country allowed to grow marijuana to ease his
medical problems is now fighting to win the right to
import the drug.

Jean Charles Pariseau filed a motion yesterday
with the Federal Court of Canada asking it to
order that he be allowed to bring marijuana into
the country.

Mr. Pariseau, a 33-year-old who is stricken with a
number of medical conditions including HIV and
epilepsy, is also asking the court to order Health
Canada to stop restricting how much he is allowed
to grow himself.

In papers filed with the court, he says the federal
department gave him permission last year to grow
as much as he needed to help him with his health
problems.

But earlier this summer, Health Canada changed the conditions to allow
him
to harvest only three mature marijuana plants over six months. He argues
that
isn't enough to help him cope with a regimen of medications he has to take
every day.

"I need to smoke four or more grams of marijuana per day to help me ingest
my 21 grams of pills. The more marijuana I smoke, the more I can eat and
the longer I can keep my weight up and stay alive," he says in an affidavit
filed with the court.

"Having marijuana is the best help in helping me cope with my illnesses,"
he
wrote.

He is also anemic and suffers from an infection by a parasite.

In the court filings, he labels the move by Health Canada officials to
limit the
doses of marijuana he can take as "unconscionable" and says they are
forcing him to spend a lot of money for his hydroponic growing operation
for
too few plants.

"I'm almost out of marijuana, virtually broke with debts I can't pay. My
cablevision has just been cut off. My hydro bill is almost $300 to grow
three
plants with lighting that could have grown 85," he said.

"This, and the stress of coping with these government officials, is killing
me."

A court hearing is slated for Thursday.

A spokeswoman for Health Canada declined to comment, saying it would
be inappropriate to talk about an individual case or a matter before the
court.

In a brief interview, Mr. Pariseau said the limits Health Canada has placed
on him are forcing him to look for an illegal supply.

"That means I'm going to have to back onto the street to buy some again,"
he
said after filing the papers.

He is also planning to protest Health Canada's decisions on Parliament
Hill
on Monday when the new parliamentary session opens.

John Turmel, a supporter helping with the court battle, said Health Canada
is
requiring Mr. Pariseau to be available for experiments on other ways of
ingesting marijuana on penalty of having his privileges revoked.

"If he does not submit to this, they can revoke his exemption. That's terrible.
His doctor should decide that. If the kid is happy smoking it and it's
helping
him get down his 48 pills a day why should he run around looking for a
new
way?" Mr. Turmel said.

They will ask the court to overturn that provision as well.

But Mr. Turmel said the most important bid is to get an order allowing
marijuana to be imported for medical purposes. "It's legal for him to have
it.
It's legal for them to grow it in Holland. Why can't he just order what
he
needs from Holland if he can't grow enough for himself?" he said.

"That's the most important one of all for all these people across Canada
who
need this medicine. Why make them jump through hoops? Just let them
order it from Holland cheap."

He hopes a recent ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal may help.

In July, the appeal court ruled that the law against possessing marijuana
violates the rights of sick people who rely on the drug. The court said
the law
forces the ill to chose between "health and imprisonment."

The appeal court upheld a stay on charges against Terry Parker, a
44-year-old Toronto man who grows marijuana and smokes three or four
joints a day to control his epilepsy.

He says it is the only drug that gives him relief from repeated seizures,
blackouts and vomiting.

The court also rejected the system of formal exemptions for those who want
to possess or grow marijuana for medical reasons, ruling that the "unfettered
and unstructured discretion of the minister of health is not consistent
with the
principles of fundamental justice."

The court, however, suspended its ruling for a year to give Parliament
enough time to deal with the issue.

There are 72 Canadians who have been granted permission to possess or
possess and cultivate marijuana for medical reasons.

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian Health Minister Allan Rock said Wednesday
he had ordered officials to
develop clinical trials for the medical use of marijuana and
to determine how to grant safe access to the drug.

Rock said this was not the first step toward the legalization
of marijuana, but an opposition member of
parliament, physician Grant Hill, immediately questioned whether
it would not lead to more than pain relief.

Rock, a Liberal, told reporters, "There are Canadians who are
suffering from terminal illnesses who are in
pain or suffering from difficult symptoms who believe that
smoking medical marijuana can help with those
symptoms."

The debate echoed that in the United States, where voters in seven
states and the District of Columbia have
approved the medical use of marijuana but have been blocked
by the federal government.

Many lobbying groups in Canada have pushed for the medical use
of marijuana or for its full legalization, but
opponents argue that the drug causes harm and is a steppingstone
to harder drugs.

Hill, the health spokesman for Canada's opposition Reform Party,
said he could accept clinical trials but
added, "It's quite controversial because it could lead
to other things."

"As a medical doctor, I treated young people who were habituated
to marijuana, whose marks had suffered,
whose lives were wrecked," he said.

Rock, who belongs to the left-leaning wing of the ruling Liberal
Party, spent his formative years in the
long-haired, smoke-wreathed 1960s. In 1969 he arranged
for former Beatle John Lennon and his wife, Yoko
Ono, to attend a peace conference in Ottawa.

Asked if he had smoked marijuana, the prime ministerial aspirant
smiled broadly, and he refused to answer the
question when pressed later.

"It has nothing to do with legalizing marijuana," Rock said, adding
that he wanted to develop scientific
evidence to determine whether anecdotal evidence of marijuana's
benefits could be backed up.

"What I've asked officials to do is to develop a plan that will
include clinical trials of medical marijuana and
also deal with some of the difficult aspects of this complex
question, including criteria and access to a safe
supply of this medical -- or what would be a medical -- drug," he
said.

Last March, Rock lifted a 60-year-old ban on the commercial cultivation
of hemp, a non-psychoactive cousin
of marijuana.

OTTAWA (CP) -- Health Minister Allan Rock has asked his officials
to draw up a plan for
clinical trials on the medical use of marijuana -- and to figure out
how a safe supply could be
provided to those who might need the drug to ease pain.

"There are Canadians who are suffering from terminal illnesses,
who are in pain or suffering
from difficult symptoms, who believe that smoking medical marijuana
can help with their
symptoms," Rock said Wednesday. But before the government
makes a final decision it
wants scientific evidence, not just anecdotal testimony,
on whether smoking pot can help
relieve pain.

"Clinical trials will help us develop that evidence in a calm,
rational way," Rock said
outside the Commons.

"I think Canadians support, on a compassionate basis, if someone
is dying, access to a
substance that could alleviate their symptoms." Various
lobby groups and individuals
contend that marijuana can help ease the symptoms of multiple
sclerosis, epilepsy, advanced
AIDs and a range of other ailments.

Some users have clashed with the law after being arrested for
possession, trafficking or
growing pot. But many convictions have resulted in lenient sentences,
and in some cases
absolute discharges that left the person with no criminal record.

Rock, who has been wrestling with the problem for some time,
announced his plan a day
before the Commons was to debate a private member's motion by Bloc
Quebecois MP
Bernard Bigras advocating legalization of marijuana for medical use.

The initiative has attracted two NDP MPs, Nelson Riis and Libby
Davies, as co-sponsors. It
is slated to be one of the few pieces of private member's business
that will come to a formal
vote in this session of the Commons.

Liberal sources confirmed Rock's timing Wednesday was a matter
of political calculation
rather than coincidence.

"Allan's been talking about this for a long time, he feels strongly
about it," said one insider.
"And it's always good to be ahead of an issue."

It was not clear how long the clinical trials might take, though
officials say research projects
of this kind typically go on for two to three years.

Only if the trials show marijuana is medically useful would the
government go on to the
next step -- a formal decision on whether to allow full-time
legal access to the drug for
medical use.

In the meantime, Rock is looking at the possibility of issuing
special permission for
individuals to use the drug on a case-by-case basis, whether they participate
in the research
trials or not.

"He doesn't want a restrictive process that would deny access
in compassionate cases," said
one senior official.

Aside from gathering scientific evidence, Rock wants to examine
how to provide a safe and
controlled supply of medical marijuana for those who might need it.

The minister was careful to specify that the trials do not mean
the government is moving
toward wider legalization of pot for recreational purposes.

"I've asked officials to develop a plan for research," he said.
"It has nothing to do with
legalizing marijuana."

Reform health critic Grant Hill said he favours clinical trials
"to look at anything that will
help people out."

But he was uneasy that the move might widen into a campaign for
legalization of marijuana
for any purpose.

"As a medical doctor I've treated young people who were habituated
to marijuana, whose
marks had suffered, whose lives were wrecked. That's my
concern." Bigras, speaking for
the Bloc, welcomed Rock's announcement but warned that the minister
shouldn't use
clinical trials as an excuse to postpone a political decision.

There has to be a way for individuals to get access to the drug
on a compassionate basis
while the trials go on, said Bigras.

Terrence Stewart, chairman of the Canadian AIDS Society, called
Rock's announcement "a
great step." But he quickly added the society will keep pressing Ottawa
to take the next step
and decriminalize the drug for medical use.

"Just providing the drugs under a clinical trial is not going
to be the answer. We have to
have a commitment from the government that they will see
it through to the end."

Anxious and in failing health from AIDS, James Wakeford feels
his chances of getting the
federal government to allow him to use marijuana have just about gone
up in smoke.

Six months ago, a Toronto judge suggested Wakeford apply to Health
Minister Allan Rock
for an exemption from being prosecuted for possessing marijuana for
medical reasons, an
option available under federal drug laws.

But after writing eight times to Rock and his officials, the
54-year-old still doesn't have an
answer.

So Wakeford has returned to court, asking that a judge order
Ottawa to not only let him
smoke marijuana, but to supply him with the drug he says stimulates
his appetite and reduces
the side effects caused by his medications, such as weakness and nausea.

``The government is a black hole,'' Wakeford said in an interview
this week. ``It's my
position that they have no intention of helping me without a court
order - and that's what I
intend to get.''

Wakeford originally turned to the Ontario Court, general division
last summer. He became
the first Canadian to launch a civil lawsuit against the federal government
for the right to
use marijuana for medical purposes.

Although people with epilepsy and multiple sclerosis have made
similar requests, they were
made while defending themselves against criminal charges.

``Mine was a pre-emptive strike,'' said Wakeford, who was admitted
to hospital twice last
year for extreme weight loss, a near-fatal liver failure and hepatitis
contracted through an
intravenous feeding line. ``I've never been charged.''

He's tried using Marinol, a medication that contains synthetic
THC, the active ingredient in
marijuana, but it only made him sicker, he said.

At the hearing last summer, Mr. Justice Harry LaForme ruled
that Wakeford's constitutional
rights to liberty and security of the person were, on the face
of it, violated by the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act, which prohibits marijuana use.

But LaForme went on to conclude that the act didn't undermine
the principles of
fundamental justice, because ministerial exemptions were available
and Wakeford had yet to
apply for one.

``Mr. Wakeford's terminal illness, its dreadful and painful
effects on him physically and
emotionally, and his desire to treat himself effectively and in a manner
that allows him relief
and dignity, surely qualify as rights,'' the judge said in his ruling.
``His choice (to use
marijuana) harms no one.''

Wakeford's lawyer, Osgoode Hall law professor Alan Young, sent
the first of several letters
to Rock on Sept. 14, applying for the exemption and reminding
him that ``AIDS is a fatal
illness and Mr. Wakeford does not have the luxury of waiting
indefinitely for a response.''

On Nov. 5, Rock wrote to Wakeford, saying he sympathized
with him.

And on Nov. 18, Rock sent a letter to Young, acknowledging
receipt of the request. Justice
department officials were giving it ``careful attention,'' Rock
said.

When nothing further was heard by Dec. 17, Young sent a
final letter, concluding any
exemption written into the act was meaningless, and went back to court.

During a brief hearing in Toronto last week, Mr. Justice
Archie Campbell suggested the
case be sent back to LaForme for consideration.

No court date has been set.

Wakeford, a former executive director of the Casey House Foundation,
said a court order
forcing Ottawa to give him the exemption could help others who have
made similar
applications.

Young says there have been 12 such applications.

Carole Bouchard, assistant director of the health department's
bureau of drug surveillance,
said she couldn't discuss Wakeford's case because it is before the
courts.

Police officers will continue to arrest terminally ill Canadians
who are growing and smoking
marijuana even though Allan Rock, the Health Minister, has approved
clinical trials on the
medical use of the drug.

The federal government has not instructed the RCMP to refrain
from laying charges against
patients who use marijuana to fight the symptoms related to their
disease.

"The law remains the same for now," said Derek King, a spokesman
for the health minister.

Mr. Rock announced on Wednesday that his officials will conduct
clinical trials on the
medical use of marijuana to determine whether the drug can help
relieve medicinal
side-effects for patients being treated for terminal illnesses
such as AIDS and cancer.

No timetable has been set yet, but Mr. Rock said scientists will
gather evidence "as soon as
possible" and develop appropriate guidelines for the medical
use of the drug and to provide
access to a safe supply.

Eugene Oscapella is a founding member of the Canadian Foundation
for Drug Policy, which
supports the decriminalization of many drugs for medical purposes.
Yesterday he blasted the
Liberal government for not showing more "compassion" toward terminally
ill patients.

"This is appalling," said Mr. Oscapella.

"The word compassion seems to be lacking from the vocabulary of
this government."

Mr. Oscapella said that Mr. Rock has the power, under section
56 of the Controlled Drugs
and the Substances Act, to exempt any person from the application
of the law.

OTTAWA - Canada's health minister has
authorized clinical trials to determine if marijuana
is a useful medicine for people suffering
from terminal illnesses and other painful conditions.
But the minister, Allan Rock, stressed
during debate in Parliament yesterday that the decision
did not mean the government was moving
toward wider legalization of marijuana for
recreational purposes.

Rock said he also wants officials to
examine how to provide access to a safe supply of
medical marijuana for those who might
need it.

"I think Canadians support, on a compassionate
basis, if someone is dying, access to a
substance that could alleviate their
symptoms," he said.

Proponents say marijuana alleviates a
wide range of medical problems, including nausea
from chemotherapy and pressure on the
eyes from glaucoma.

The debate echoed that in the United
States, where voters in seven states and the District of
Columbia have approved the medical use
of marijuana but have been blocked by the federal
government.

Many lobbying groups in Canada have pushed
for the medical use of marijuana or for its full
legalization, but opponents argue that
the drug is a steppingstone to harder drugs.

Grant Hill, the health spokesman for
Canada's opposition Reform Party, said he could accept
clinical trials but added, "It's quite
controversial because it could lead to other things."
"As a medical doctor, I treated young
people who were habituated to marijuana, whose
marks had suffered, whose lives were
wrecked," he said.

Rock, who belongs to the left-leaning
wing of the ruling Liberal Party, spent his formative
years in the 1960s. In 1969 he
arranged for former Beatle John Lennon and his wife, Yoko
Ono, to attend a peace conference in
Ottawa.

Asked if he had smoked marijuana, the
prime-ministerial aspirant smiled broadly, and he
refused to answer the question when
pressed later.

"It has nothing to do with legalizing
marijuana," Rock said, adding that he wanted to develop
scientific evidence to determine whether
anecdotal evidence of marijuana's benefits could be
backed up.

"What I've asked officials to do is to
develop a plan that will include clinical trials of medical
marijuana and also deal with some of
the difficult aspects of this complex question, including
criteria and access to a safe supply
of this medical - or what would be a medical - drug," he
said.

It's time people stopped thinking of marijuana to get high and
consider it the medical aid it just might be.

If pot use can ease the pain and discomfort of those suffering
serious illness, then it is worthy of the clinical
tests the federal government has announced it wants to conduct.
This study makes sense because of the
growing need and increasing acceptance of marijuana as
something other than a street drug. It is estimated
20,000 Canadians would apply to smoke it, to help offset
the effects of illnesses such as glaucoma, multiple
sclerosis, cancer, epilepsy, AIDS and arthritis.

Many doctors wants to use the drug, to help offset the nausea
common to AIDS sufferers. In Canada, many
medical groups and the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, a think
tank that studies drug laws, have long
lobbied for the study.

Seven American states and the District of Columbia have approved
the medical use of marijuana. Clinical
tests are also underway in California and Britain.

But a study for medicinal purposes should not be a step toward
decriminalization. Marijuana should remain
an illegal drug. Just as a pain-numbing drug like morphine is
dispensed in hospital, neither should marijuana
be seen on street corners.

Foundation lawyer Eugene Oscapella summed it up best when he
said, "It has become just plain cruel to deny
this drug to dying people who could use this to alleviate pain and
suffering."

It shouldn't have taken decades of pleading, lobbying and covert
lawbreaking on the part of doctors,
caregivers and those suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis,
epilepsy and other chronic diseases to
win this small show of compassion from Canada's lawmakers.
It shouldn't have taken the federal government
15 months to respond to a clear signal from the courts.

In December of 1997, Ontario Judge Patrick Sheppard ruled that
``it does not accord with fundamental
justice to criminalize a person suffering from a serious chronic medical
disability for possessing a vitally
helpful substance not legally available in Canada.''

It shouldn't have taken the criminalization of sick people such
as Terry Parker of Toronto, who uses
marijuana to ease his epileptic seizures, or Mark Crossley of Nova
Scotia, who uses the drug to cope with the
headaches caused by his brain tumour, to bring about this
change.

Rock deserves credit for breaking the logjam. He wisely
decided to set guidelines for the medical use and
distribution of marijuana before allowing its widespread use.
All that exists now is anedoctal evidence that it
alleviates certain types of suffering. Virtually nothing is
known about its side effects.

The Reform party is warning that Rock is opening the door to
the legalization of marijuana.

The health minister denies that he has any such intention.
But even if his decision leads to changes in
Canada's drug laws, it would be the right thing to do.

Sick people should not be punished because healthy people like
smoking dope.

Locals find good and bad in Health Minister
Allan Rock's plan to test illegal drug
Local reaction to federal Health Minister
Alan Rock's plan to start clinical trials on the
medical use of marijuana is, not surprisingly,
mixed. On Wednesday, Rock announced that
he has asked his officials to draw up
a plan for trials and to figure out how a safe supply of
the illegal drug could be provided to
those who might need marijuana to ease the pain.
"It's a step in the right direction
and it's common sense really," said Dustin Sunflower, a
partner in Nelson's Holy Smoke Culture
Shop and a well-known pot crusader.

"The highest thing that a society can
be based on is compassion because that means that
society cares for people and cares for
the sick. So for the government to deny
medicinal cannabis is uncompassionate...so
it would seem we are heading in the right
direction if compassion is the highest
ideal."

Nelson City Police Sgt. Dan Maluta
does not view Rock's decision in the same light. "I
have a concern because people will get
on the bandwagon and say "you see even our federal
health officials feel that there is
some validity to it." They will then think it legitimizes their
own use for whatever ails them in the
broad sense," Maluta told the Daily News.

Various lobby groups and individuals
contend that marijuana can help ease the symptoms of
multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, advanced
AIDS and a range of other ailments.
Rock said Wednesday that Canadians support
the use "on a compassionate basis, if someone
is dying." The health minister said
before the government makes any final
decision it wants scientific evidence
and not just anecdotal testimony on whether smoking
pot can help relieve pain.

"I know quite a few people who use it
for medicinal purposes in this area," said
Sunflower. "These people are sick.
When they get cannabis it could be their next meal or
their next night of sleep, they don't
function as normal human beings without it."
One local resident who suffers from
multiple sclerosis welcomed the federal government's
initiative. "I think it's really
good for stress and for being able to enjoy a good night's sleep,"
said the man who asked that his name
be kept
anonymous. "It helps with pain
and the legal drugs I'm on now have side effects and I find
pot helps with the nausea that it causes.

" The man, who was diagnosed with the
disease 15 years ago, said it may also help take
away the negative stigma often attached
to marijuana. "Right now doctors and nurses just
don't want to talk to you about it,"
he said. "At least this will open up the dialogue."
Kootenay-Boundary-Okanagan MP Jim Gouk
said he's not making any judgment on the
decision at this point. "I don't
have a problem with them doing some proper scientific
determination as to the effect of it,"
the Reform Party MP said. "I
would hope that in doing that they don't
limit it to smoking it because my preliminary
investigation suggests that any medical
advantage could be obtained through methods other
than smoking it.

There are prescription drugs on the market
which contain THC (one of the psychoactive
elements in cannabis) and are legal
under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Gouk
said he hopes the government looks into
other types of similar solutions that do not include
actually inhaling smoke." "Putting the
THC aspect of marijuana aside, smoking is smoking,"
Gouk said. "It's pretty hard to
promote the
ingestion of smoke coming off of burning
refuse as a health product.

So if THC can provide relief to people
in certain circumstances and you can get all the
benefits of that through something other
than smoking then we should be looking into that in
this study." Gouk said he has been contacted
by a few of his constituents who inquired about
the potential of legally growing medicinal
marijuana.

The local MP agrees with Rock that many
people do have compassion for those who use
pot to ease the pain of illness.
"I did a survey about the concept of medical marijuana and
there does seem to be a level of support
for it," Gouk said. "So I think this is the next logical
step. You don't rush into something
like that, but you don't blindly close your eyes and ears
to it either."

Maluta is not convinced. "What
health practitioner would prescribe marijuana, which has
some 4,000 toxins and other substances
in its smoke, to try and cure or help someone would
be beyond me," Maluta said. When
the federal government's trials
are complete, Maluta hopes the evidence
will support the opposite of what they are intended
to do. "I'm hoping that part of
what is driving this is that they are going to find from the
clinical study that no practitioners
are going to support actually inhaling raw marijuana in
order to treat illness," said Maluta.
"It will refute it and then it could no longer be raised as a
defence in court." While the trials
are being planned, Rock said he is looking into the
possibility of issuing special permission
for individuals to use the drug on a case-by-case
basis.